On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 02:33:50PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:38 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 12:29:30PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > >>> On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:09 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >>>> And, sure, that'd be OK with me, and would probably be better than > >>>> adding another exception, so I'm OK with skipping #3. (We definitely > >>>> shouldn't omit #2, though.) > >>> > >>> Seems straightforward enough, but... Why are we doing this again? It > >>> still seems like non-standard behavior. Are we simply attempting to > >>> avoid the case where folks would get the "nobody" behavior unexpectedly > >>> because of a mountd bug, or is there more to it? > >> > >> That's all there is to it. As I said: > >> > >>>>>>>> 2. In the absence of sec=, we should probably *not* choose > >>>>>>>> AUTH_NULL. (All mountd's before 1.1.3 list AUTH_NULL first on > >>>>>>>> the returned list, so users with older servers may wonder why a > >>>>>>>> client upgrade is making files they create suddenly be owned by > >>>>>>>> nobody.) http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=125089022306281&w=2 > >> > >>> I'm just thinking of what the documenting comment might say, and perhaps > >>> some explanation added to nfs(5). > >> > >> "As a special case, to work around bugs in some older servers, the > >> client will never automatically negotiate auth_null; if auth_null is > >> desired, an explicit "sec=null" on the commandline is required." > >> > >> Or something like that. > > > > OK, one more corner case. > > > > What if the mount doesn't specify "sec=" and the only flavor in the > > server's auth list is AUTH_NULL? Seems like we should allow that one. > > > > Some servers will accept any flavor of incoming RPC security > and just use AUTH_NULL in this situation. It really shouldn't > matter what the client sends, as long as the server is just > going to map all requests to nobody/nobody anyway... OK, but let's not pile on more workarounds than we have to. I don't see any reason that we really need to do anything special for servers that are broken in *that* particular way.... --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
